Crawford: Duncan Incident Amoung Biggest Regrets in His Life

Whistling His Own Tune
Joey Crawford Sounds Off on 35 Years as an N.B.A. Referee


Crawford did not hesitate when asked if he had any regrets. There are two, he said. The first is regarding his actions that led to a guilty plea of falsely stating income in 1998 after an I.R.S. investigation into several referees’ pocketing cash from downgraded airline tickets. The second is an incident in 2007 in which Crawford and the San Antonio Spurs star Tim Duncan had an on-court verbal altercation. Duncan said Crawford challenged him to a fight.
The tax thing, I was petrified, to be honest with you. It was the worst. If they wanted to scare you, they did. If that’s what they wanted to do, they did. They did it. I was so grateful to get the chance to come back.
The Duncan thing probably changed my life. It was just — you come to the realization that maybe the way you’ve been doing things is not the proper way and you have to regroup, not only on the court but off the court.
I had seen a sports psychologist before that. But after, I saw him a lot more. His name is Joel Fish. He’s worked with a lot of athletes. It gave me a new perspective.
In both instances, Crawford’s career was in doubt. He resigned after his guilty plea and was sentenced to six months of house arrest and three years’ probation. He was reinstated in 1999, however, and did not miss any games because of the league’s lockout. After the Duncan episode, Commissioner David Stern suspended Crawford, ending a streak of 21 consecutive years in which Crawford officiated in the finals, but reinstated him that fall.





http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/sp...pagewanted=all


This is only the part with Duncan. The whole thing is a pretty good read. He once gave a T so hard he broke his finger...LOL

u know when the refs were all reinstated in that betting scandal, did they all took paycuts? or were the unions to strong for stern to handle???

It's easy to see how grateful this clown is to Stern.

I'll believe the NBA is not "maneuvered" when Joey Crawford is not around anymore.

Maybe.

But without refs being bought how would the Lakers ever win?

Yet he fucked it up in 2008 with the Barry non call against the Lakers among other funny games against us. Fuck you Joey

Either A or B.

A) He is enough of a man for admitting his mistakes and learning from them and seeking therapy to evolve.

B) He is just laying down the proper groundwork before really fucking the Spurs in these years playoffs.

I'm as fond of redemption stories as the next guy, but having watched Joey in the last five years allow hatchet jobs on Tim, only to turn around and call touch fouls on him, I don't believe a word of it. Nice press release, though, Joey.

Fuck Joey Crawford.

Joey's a changed man.

Just like Ron Artest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TampaDude

Fuck Joey Crawford.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ

Joey's a changed man.

Just like Ron Artest.

---

:lol

http://larrybrownsports.com/wp-conte...bow-harden.png

fuck yo regrets clown

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ

Joey's a changed man.

Just like Ron Artest.

---

:lol

I don't know about you guys but every time Crawford is refeering a spurs game I feel we are going to lose that game

He is a good ref but should NOT have been allowed back after the Duncan incident. He came into that game looking for an altercation with Tim and took the first chance to act on it...

Good article, thanks for the link.

These articles are so well written compared to what "we" normally have put before us. I hate writing, always have, as I totally suck. So as a person who sucks so profoundly, I feel eminently qualified to judge. Good stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverblk mystix

Either A or B.

A) He is enough of a man for admitting his mistakes and learning from them and seeking therapy to evolve.

B) He is just laying down the proper groundwork before really fucking the Spurs in these years playoffs.

---

B for sure is exactly my first thought when reading his crap statement.
So that stupid people can say that he didn't screw us because "remember he said he regretted it"... Idiots.

You gotta give him credit for working on his stuff via counseling.

give him credit? Like you'd give a crack head credit for only spending money they worked for at a legit job on more crack as opposed to spending money they stole from their mom and dad? Screw that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupremeGuy

But without refs being bought how would the Lakers ever win?

---

:lol acting like the refs didn't cheat for the Spurs

Great.


Now he will officiate more Spurs games



Just fucking great

I'm not a huge Crawford hater. He's along with dan Crawford and mcutchen are the only competent refs left. He's shown true contrition and he's obviously working on his problems. Props to him for owning up to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YoMamaIsCallin

You gotta give him credit for working on his stuff via counseling.

---

Why? People who really need (and benefit) from counseling rarely wear it on their sleeves.

People who have something practical to gain from letting peple know they are in counseling love to show it off like a new Mercedes.

It's like celebrity rehab. Those who make a public specatacle of themselves (but have a career to rescue) can blame it all on some mental instability that they are bravely battling.

Having a knucklehead like Ron Artest gush after the NBA Finals about how his psychiatrist has transformed him simply cheapens the good work done by countless doctors and their patients every day. And when the NBA endorses such treacle by naming Artest Citizen of the Year, it just cheapens the NBA.

Crawford is no better. He just wants to keep working, that's all. He'll revert to his old "demons" (a word people like him love to use) the minute it suits him -- probably in a game seven of the NBA Finals involving the Spurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T Park

I'm not a huge Crawford hater. He's along with dan Crawford and mcutchen are the only competent refs left. He's shown true contrition and he's obviously working on his problems. Props to him for owning up to it.

---

I don't think I've ever known a more blind brown noser as yourself who is so full of nothing as far as having any knowledge or even being able to have a backbone to not have to ride some authority nut sac, ever. Seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YoMamaIsCallin

You gotta give him credit for working on his stuff via counseling.

---

It's probably a required item on his return to reffing list, like probation for a convict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ

Why? People who really need (and benefit) from counseling rarely wear it on their sleeves.

People who have something practical to gain from letting peple know they are in counseling love to show it off like a new Mercedes.

It's like celebrity rehab. Those who make a public specatacle of themselves (but have a career to rescue) can blame it all on some mental instability that they are bravely battling.

Having a knucklehead like Ron Artest gush after the NBA Finals about how his psychiatrist has transformed him simply cheapens the good work done by countless doctors and their patients every day. And when the NBA endorses such treacle by naming Artest Citizen of the Year, it just cheapens the NBA.

Crawford is no better. He just wants to keep working, that's all. He'll revert to his old "demons" (a word people like him love to use) the minute it suits him -- probably in a game seven of the NBA Finals involving the Spurs.

---

Possibly. However remember he was answering a question, he's not going on talk shows.

Having worked through a lot of stuff in therapy myself I would judge his answer to be honest and straightforward, not throwing it in your face as an excuse or crutch.

He didn't say he was cured, just that he worked on his "demons" and understands them and himself better now. He didn't say "Look At me! I've changed!". He was appropriately humble for having been given a second chance.

Unless you've been there it's hard to appreciate how much difficult, hard work it is to do what he did.

Regarding Artest, it's quite clear that he is no where near self realization and humility and gratitude. He may never get there. He's not even to the point where he understands how far out he is on the normalcy scale. His behavior and attitude is unacceptable and he has no concept of it. Look at the excuses he made after the latest incident with Harden.

He should have been banned for life.

Does anyone have any statistics for the number of games won/lost when Crawford is reffing compared to the average games won/lost?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbreiden83080

He is a good ref but should NOT have been allowed back after the Duncan incident. He came into that game looking for an altercation with Tim and took the first chance to act on it...

---

I agree, if not HE DEFINITELY should NEVER be able to ref a Spurs game in the playoffs again after that, that should be the first thing they said to him when they let him back in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ILoveOranges

Does anyone have any statistics for the number of games won/lost when Crawford is reffing compared to the average games won/lost?

---

Since the start of the 2007-08 regular season, the Spurs are 271-123 (.688). In that time, Joey has called 21 regular season Spurs games; they are 13-8 in those games (.619). Given the small sample size on his games, I don't know that the variance is that significant -- had the Spurs gone 14-7 in those games, they'd have won 66.7% of them and would be pretty much right on their winning percentage over time in games that Joey officiated.

For the record, they were:

3-1 in 2011-12
3-1 in 2010-11
2-4 in 2009-10
2-1 in 2008-09
3-1 in 2007-08

The Spurs are 1-4 in playoff games with Joey since the Duncan incident. They won Game 5 against Phoenix in 2008, then lost Game 5 in New Orleans that year, and lost Game 4 at home to LA (the Barry game). They lost game 3 in Dallas in 2009 and Game 2 in Phoenix in 2010. So, while they're 1-4 overall, they're 1-1 at home and 0-3 on the road; and those numbers pretty much jive with what the Spurs have done as a team in the playoffs during that span. As noted yesterday, since winning the title in Cleveland in 2007, the Spurs have been really pretty bad on the road in the playoffs, winning once in Phoenix (2008), once in New Orleans (2008), once in Dallas (2010), and once in Utah (2012). Being 0-3 in any particular set of games isn't statistically indicative of bias -- at least not in my mind.

I'll say this about Joey: I think that he's earned his spot as the league's premier official at this juncture of his career. He's called over 300 playoff games (no matter what the article says, I know for a fact that since 1986, he's called 302 playoff games; I also know that he called many games before that) and he's called the last 3 NBA Finals Game 7's (1994, 2005, 2010) -- and deservedly so. With all of that said, he's also acted outwardly like a guy who truly believes that he's at least part of the show and, at times, like he's bigger than the game or the guys who play it. It's a shame that his ego has matched his accomplishments; were he just a guy who kept it to balls and strikes, I think he'd probably be the best official who ever called an NBA game. But he comes from an era when the top officials were huge personalities who wanted to impact games, not just keep things moving along -- and from a distance, he seems to have embraced that view of his job. He's certainly a personality in the game.

I hope, for his sake, that he's made peace with himself about whatever it was that drove the Duncan ejection. He was egregiously out of line and, frankly, I think he's pretty fortunate to still have his job. I hope, too, that at some point, he's apologized to Tim; I doubt that has happened, but I do think it's been warranted.

I still hold my breath when he's on the floor for a big Spurs game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

Since the start of the 2007-08 regular season, the Spurs are 271-123 (.688). In that time, Joey has called 21 regular season Spurs games; they are 13-8 in those games (.619). Given the small sample size on his games, I don't know that the variance is that significant -- had the Spurs gone 14-7 in those games, they'd have won 66.7% of them and would be pretty much right on their winning percentage over time in games that Joey officiated.

I'll say this about Joey: I think that he's earned his spot as the league's premier official at this juncture of his career. He's called over 300 playoff games (no matter what the article says, I know for a fact that since 1986, he's called 302 playoff games; I also know that he called many games before that) and he's called the last 3 NBA Finals Game 7's (1994, 2005, 2010) -- and deservedly so. With all of that said, he's also acted outwardly like a guy who truly believes that he's at least part of the show and, at times, like he's bigger than the game or the guys who play it. It's a shame that his ego has matched his accomplishments; were he just a guy who kept it to balls and strikes, I think he'd probably be the best official who ever called an NBA game. But he comes from an era when the top officials were huge personalities who wanted to impact games, not just keep things moving along -- and from a distance, he seems to have embraced that view of his job. He's certainly a personality in the game.

---

What you can't take into account with those numbers is how many times the spurs overcame Crawford's crap officiating, and won games anyway.

The thing that bothers me most about Crawford isn't simple missed calls. It's tough to call an NBA game, and calls are going to be missed. What really bothers me is the totally inexplicable shit that happens at times. I've seen him make calls that just have nothing to do with the rules - where you're sitting there saying, "He can't do that!" And it's not just against the Spurs, by any means. I don't know what his problem is, but I just don't think the elder statesman of referees should be that capricious.

I also have to agree somewhat with the comment about him volunteering his story about going to therapy. He may not come out and say that he's better because he started going to therapy a lot more - but it's implied. If he was really contrite, I'd prefer for him just to say that he realizes that he made mistakes, and he's thankful to be back. Then let his behavior speak for itself.

All officials miss calls from time to time, but Crawford's non-call on DFish's BLATANT and OBVIOUS foul on Brent Barry in 2008 was flat out CRIMINAL. Who knows what happens if the series is 2-2 after that game instead of 3-1 Lakers. Just sayin'...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TampaDude

All officials miss calls from time to time, but Crawford's non-call on DFish's BLATANT and OBVIOUS foul on Brent Barry in 2008 was flat out CRIMINAL. Who knows what happens if the series is 2-2 after that game instead of 3-1 Lakers. Just sayin'...

---

That Spurs team had a weak bench. Finley, Barry, and Horry were all three at the ends of their careers, and contributing way too little. I'm not sure they would/could have won that series. The Spurs had made a crazy comeback just to get the LA lead down to 3 points. And even if Crawford had made the call, Barry would have had to make all 3 FT's, just to send it to OT.

But none of that matters. Barry was clearly trying to shoot a 3-pointer, and he just got pancaked. If you're a ref, you have to make that call. I don't care when it is in the game, you have to fucking make that call.

I was surprised that one of the other zebras didn't try to make the call, but I think Crawford would have over-ruled them if they had done so. That's one of the other things that bothers me about Crawford. The times he over-rules the right call, made by a ref who was in the better position, in order to make the wrong call from bad position. I just can't understand why any ref would do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

That Spurs team had a weak bench. Finley, Barry, and Horry were all three at the ends of their careers, and contributing way too little. I'm not sure they would/could have won that series. The Spurs had made a crazy comeback just to get the LA lead down to 3 points. And even if Crawford had made the call, Barry would have had to make all 3 FT's, just to send it to OT.

But none of that matters. Barry was clearly trying to shoot a 3-pointer, and he just got pancaked. If you're a ref, you have to make that call. I don't care when it is in the game, you have to fucking make that call.

I was surprised that one of the other zebras didn't try to make the call, but I think Crawford would have over-ruled them if they had done so. That's one of the other things that bothers me about Crawford. The times he over-rules the right call, made by a ref who was in the better position, in order to make the wrong call from bad position. I just can't understand why any ref would do that.

---

Yup...except I believe we were only down 2 points when the "non-foul" occurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TampaDude

Yup...except I believe we were only down 2 points when the "non-foul" occurred.

---

Hmmm... you're right. My memory fails. Three FT's would have won the game.


Echhh... the point is, it doesn't matter if it mattered. It doesn't matter if it's the playoffs, or the last second, or if it wins the game or sends it to OT. It's just such an obvious call. A guy is in the process of shooting, and a defender leaps and lands on top of him. That's about as unavoidable as it gets. You have to make that call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

Hmmm... you're right. My memory fails. Three FT's would have won the game.


Echhh... the point is, it doesn't matter if it mattered. It doesn't matter if it's the playoffs, or the last second, or if it wins the game or sends it to OT. It's just such an obvious call. A guy is in the process of shooting, and a defender leaps and lands on top of him. That's about as unavoidable as it gets. You have to make that call.

---

Yup...it doesn't matter if it's the first minute of the first game of the season, or the last 10 seconds of Game 7 of the Finals, you gotta make that call.

To be fair, Pop did say he didn't think it was a foul, but we all know he was just being a gentleman and did not want to appear like a whiner. The truth of the matter is clear. That was a blatant foul and should have been called.

I'm not saying the Spurs would have won the WCF, or if they had, that they would've beaten the Celtics in the Finals, but damn...at least be straight about it and give Barry his free throws. :ihit

Obviously a publicity stunt to both deflect David Stern's hiring of a previous crooked ref and stablizing the next decade of questionable reffing calls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urunobili

Yet he fucked it up in 2008 with the Barry non call against the Lakers among other funny games against us. Fuck you Joey

---

There's an evolution in pro sports due to thinking like yours. The move is now (and has been for a little while) to sell the foul. You even hear commentators say "he really sold that foul" as if that's part of the sport itself. In reality, it's just a way of causing a ref to feel he cannot overlook it since everyone in the arena saw it. Replay often shows it wasn't a foul, but that's the necessary evil with the game. If you want to win, you have to lie. The entire game now is 10 players lying on every near contact; heads flopping back, wild hair, 7 footers hitting the ground at the slightest contact by another big backing them down, that butt slide under the rim, the fake arching fall during contact to draw a charge... it's all an act and the best actors get rewarded.

I don't know which came first though, the blatant homer refereeing or the lying players. What I do know is that the league doesn't give a shit as long as it's profitable. We must not either, we keep paying to see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TampaDude

Yup...it doesn't matter if it's the first minute of the first game of the season, or the last 10 seconds of Game 7 of the Finals, you gotta make that call.

To be fair, Pop did say he didn't think it was a foul, but we all know he was just being a gentleman and did not want to appear like a whiner. The truth of the matter is clear. That was a blatant foul and should have been called.

I'm not saying the Spurs would have won the WCF, or if they had, that they would've beaten the Celtics in the Finals, but damn...at least be straight about it and give Barry his free throws. :ihit

---

Let's say you're right, it was a foul and they should have given Barry 3 FTs. Do they then need to go back and look at every play to see where a foul might have occurred and award FTs and foul out players because of it, which would change the overall score and negate points said player scored after that foul?

Refs have a huge degree of control, but the crowd only cares about the last few seconds of the game. That's not even where the skewing happens, if it does. It happens in the 1st quarter, when no one is paying attention to the refs, and just after the half, when everyone is dazed from the halftime and is waiting for the teams to get back into rhythm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA210

I don't think I've ever known a more blind brown noser as yourself who is so full of nothing as far as having any knowledge or even being able to have a backbone to not have to ride some authority nut sac, ever. Seriously.

---

Because I believe the guy is sorry for his actions?

God get the fuck a hold of yourself and quit believing such ridiculous stupid conspiracy bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T Park

Because I believe the guy is sorry for his actions?

God get the fuck a hold of yourself and quit believing such ridiculous stupid conspiracy bullshit.

---

You are also probably the most annoying know nothing on the board, definitely the most gullible. STFU man, dude obviously had it against Duncan, and you believe him, based on what, because he said so? :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Let's say you're right, it was a foul and they should have given Barry 3 FTs. Do they then need to go back and look at every play to see where a foul might have occurred and award FTs and foul out players because of it, which would change the overall score and negate points said player scored after that foul?

Refs have a huge degree of control, but the crowd only cares about the last few seconds of the game. That's not even where the skewing happens, if it does. It happens in the 1st quarter, when no one is paying attention to the refs, and just after the half, when everyone is dazed from the halftime and is waiting for the teams to get back into rhythm.

---

Dude...nobody is saying we should go back and redo that game. What's done is done. All we are saying is that Joey should've gotten it right in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Let's say you're right, it was a foul and they should have given Barry 3 FTs. Do they then need to go back and look at every play to see where a foul might have occurred and award FTs and foul out players because of it, which would change the overall score and negate points said player scored after that foul?

Refs have a huge degree of control, but the crowd only cares about the last few seconds of the game. That's not even where the skewing happens, if it does. It happens in the 1st quarter, when no one is paying attention to the refs, and just after the half, when everyone is dazed from the halftime and is waiting for the teams to get back into rhythm.

---

I don't even know what to say to that, except that I think you should know me better than that. Of course that's not what I was saying. And I don't think I even hinted that it was. Look, all I said is that Crawford has done some totally inexplicable shit over the years. I think that call was one example. I'll give you another example:

In the last seconds of a very close game, I watched a player get hacked under his own basket, and the ball went flying out the end line. Not only did Crawford not call the foul, but he awarded the ball to the defensive team at the free throw line extended, like it was a 24-second violation, and then put some time back on the clock. Utterly inexplicable.

Look, calls get missed. It's absolutely unavoidable. I think some refs get intimidated by home crowds, and wind up effectively (not intentionally) biased in favor of the home team. I think some refs have had a bias for or against certain teams, or players. I know that the calls are not consistent for stars vs. the lower-tier players. And I'm 100% certain that Stu Jackson, when he was still in charge of the officials, encouraged them to make calls that were directed at individual players. But, all things considered, I think the overall officiating is pretty damned good, considering how difficult the job is.

So I'll try and be crystal clear about Crawford. My queasiness about him isn't simple missed calls. It's the ridiculous, inexplicable shit I've seen him do, that totally averts the rules of the game. Like refusing to call goaltending, when a player swats a ball that just came off the glass on its way to the rim. I just don't see how that happens with an NBA level ref. My best guess is that he gets pissed about something, and just quits thinking - and he makes calls to prove a point.

I'm not one to suggest taking away a man's livelihood, as a rule. But I really don't think he should still be calling games. I don't want the leage to review plays during the games. But I would like to see their review of the officiating after games be a little more serious, and a little less about public perception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Let's say you're right, it was a foul and they should have given Barry 3 FTs. Do they then need to go back and look at every play to see where a foul might have occurred and award FTs and foul out players because of it, which would change the overall score and negate points said player scored after that foul?

Refs have a huge degree of control, but the crowd only cares about the last few seconds of the game. That's not even where the skewing happens, if it does. It happens in the 1st quarter, when no one is paying attention to the refs, and just after the half, when everyone is dazed from the halftime and is waiting for the teams to get back into rhythm.

---

Brent Barry wasn't in that situation often enough. He tried to get out of the way of Fisher when he should have tried shooting through Fisher's contact. That way the refs would have been forced to call the foul.